I've been making the same point in my previous posts, and no we're not in the same page because I'm not talking about composition. Composition is universal for any camera you use.Of course! But that is very different than what you accuse non/starting photographers. We are on the same page. If your composition sucks with a P&S camera, not even the most expensive camera can fix that.
That is a perfectly legitimate approach to photography, nothing wrong with that. But here we're talking about the canned baked beans approach to judging the quality of higher end cameras.Since last december, I have been using a Lumix G3 so it is too late now to go back to a P&S. Although I don't see how wanting to see what I saw on my screen qualifies me for using a lesser quality product. Why is it necessary to manipulate a picture? I don't get that. Because of it, I now should just use a so so camera? I am not taking a picture for any other reason, but to appreciate nature as I saw it in that moment. True, that a P&S will look worse than DSLR, but if it is good enough for me, is there anything wrong with that?
Absolutely nothing wrong with that, art is subjective after all.I know these shots are nothing special but why would I post process them? Are these not good enough for my purposes? I am not in business to sell my pictures, I take them for my own enjoyment. What am I missing with this JPEG? Each picture comes with it's emotions that were felt that day. I love it. What "I" don't want to feel is a reminder that this picture was PPed and looks different than what I remember.
No, what I'm saying is, to criticise the LX5 for not producing good JPGs would be missing the part that makes the LX5 a great camera.Again, if I don't install a supercharger on my naturally aspirated M3, do you suggest to me that I should really just get a VW?
I know what you are saying and what I'm trying to say is JPGs are only a part of what the LX5 can do. The baked beans analogy is response to what you were saying about what post-processing means to you.Your chef DOESN'T claim that his beans are just canned beans. But YOU claim it would be ok for your chef to say the beans are canned when in fact a lot more went into creating the end product. Can you not see what I am trying to point out? How can you post a picture that you spent extra time on and say that is what the LX5 created?
No, no, if you want to get as much out of a camera like the LX5 you should really go raw, in which case the image that it produces should look relatively flat and bland, if the photo is correctly taken. This is what I've been trying to explain. Adding your own interpretation is what I was talking about in terms of artistic creativity - the LX5 is a camera that allows you to do that. So getting 'as much as possible out of the camera' is really to get a flat and bland image.That way we know what is possible from the camera itself. That is helpful. Shouldn't we try to get as much as possible out of the camera, before we add our own interpretation to it?
The problem with this though, is that you will look at this flat and bland image and you'll say "what a crap camera, its images are flat and bland".
It's not way off. Criticising the Leica for its JPGs is missing what it can really do. Same with the LX5.